The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 18, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Memo: Group Wants To Create Fake Grassroots Wind 'Subversion' Campaign That 'Should Appear As A Groundswell'

Stephen Lacey, Climate Progress
May 09, 2012  |  31 Comments

Last February, a group of anti-wind activists gathered in Washington, DC. Their goal: establish a coordinated, nation-wide program of "wind warriors" who could be dispatched to fight the industry anywhere, anytime.

The organization would combine efforts and create “what should appear as a ‘groundswell’ among grass roots” to counter legislation supporting wind energy on the federal, state and local levels.

The leader of the group was John Droz, Jr, a long-time wind opponent and a senior fellow at the ultra-conservative American Tradition Institute. ATI calls itself an “environmental” think tank. The organization, known best for suing climate scientist Michael Mann, is devoted to spreading doubt about climate change, opposing state-level renewable energy targets, and stripping away environmental regulations.

The ATI is so extreme that it was denounced by the American Association for the Advancement of Science for contributing to an “environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas.”

According to a memo just obtained by the Checks and Balances Project and reviewed by Climate Progress, Droz has also been focused on crafting a fake grassroots campaign to fight renewable energy projects — specifically wind — in legislatures, zoning boards and town halls across the country.

In a poorly timed suggestion, Droz contemplates joining with the Heartland Institute (because there is “substantial commonality”) and launching a fake billboard campaign to derail wind developers. What could go wrong with that?

The memo shows that Droz brought together these wind opponents from all over the country last year to “cause subversion in message of [the wind] industry so that it effectively becomes so bad no one wants to admit they are for it.”

The minimum national PR campaign goal is to constructively influence national and state wind energy policies. A broader possible goal is to constructively influence national and state energy and environmental policies.

The goal will be realized by coordination of a focused message along many channels and with multiple voices. The intent is to target three audiences with consistent messaging to create the change.  Public opinion must begin to change in what should appear as a “groundswell” among grass roots.

By “constructively influence” the authors really mean “disrupt” any piece of legislation supporting wind energy — and likely other forms of renewable energy as collateral damage.

The document, authored by Illinois anti-wind attorney Rich Porter and edited by Droz, outlines in great detail how a national PR campaign would function. The group’s campaign efforts would include outreach to a who’s who of conservative media outlets and think tanks already working to discredit renewable energy: Fox News, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Heartland Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and Americans for Prosperity.

The memo outlines more than 20 ideas for undertaking a national campaign, including teaching anti-wind curriculum in schools and creating “dummy” companies to trip up wind developers attempting to build projects. Below is a list of some of their ideas:

  • Youth Outreach will create program for public school coordination as well as college coordination. This will include community activity and participation with sponsorships for science fairs, school activity etc. with preset parameters that cause students to steer away from wind because they discover it doesn’t meet the criteria we set up (poster contest, essays etc).
  • Setup a dummy business that will go into communities considering wind development, proposing to build 400 foot billboards.
  • Create a “think-tank” subgroup to produce and disseminate white paper reports and scientific quotes and papers that back-up the message.
  • Employ a well-known spokesman with star credibility. (Find one to volunteer?)
  • Create counter-intelligence branch (responsible for communicating current industry tactics and strategies as feedback to this organization)
  • Write expose book on the industry, showing government waste, harm to communities and other negative impacts on people and the environment.
  • A team investigates links to any organization supporting wind in order to expose that support.

The release of this memo follows public statements from highly-influential conservative groups like ALEC and Americans for Tax Reform about their plans to eliminate targets for renewable energy in states around the country. The Droz anti-wind plan is more proof that these organizations are stepping up their political campaigns against the industry.

You can download the memo here.

This article was originially pulished by Climate Progress and was reprinted with permission.

Image: Anti wind power sign via Shutterstock. 

31 Comments

Register To Comment
El Rucio
El Rucio
July 28, 2012
But it's the 1%-ers that are foisting wind turbine developments on rural residents and in wild, otherwise protected, habitats. Because their only meaningful product is tax avoidance.
richard larsen
richard larsen
July 28, 2012
How disappointing and downright SCARY, that the Regressive Conservatives in America are so organized in their opposition to wind and solar energy. The fact that there is such an organization, using such "Dr. NO" tactics, is hideous to me. They are not just 'doing what businesses do', to try and protect their Bottom Line...they are the scum of the earth, in my mind. Such an attitude would prevent a cure for cancer from being utilized (for example), citing 'overpopulation' as the reason. I should not be surprised, though, as most Conservatives I meet these days are the most MEAN-SPIRITED people I've ever encountered. No wonder their HEROES are the 1%-ers, who have wrecked this country's economy, and destroyed the American Dream. I am opposed to everything they stand for, and I will do the best I can to "OUT" them, at every opportunity. I still believe in American Citizens, who would not allow this mindset to take control of our country. Hopefully, they still CAN become well-informed, if they haven't succumbed to watching FAUX NEWS 24/7. Those people, I just write off. No use talking to them; they are too conditioned to believing LIES.
THOMAS STACY
THOMAS STACY
June 12, 2012
I do understand your desire to characterize anyone who believes something different than you do as 'dolt trolls.' this is typical of someone looking to avoid a direct discussion of the objections to their position. It is clear that you do not understand the point of view from which some commenters here are approaching the situation. Please reread earlier posts below this article which explain and and elementary fashion why wind energy is not a direct substitute for fossil fired energy. for that reason alone a comparison on price is disingenuous. Perhaps you will assume ignorance, which makes your opinion about such matters invalid. Or perhaps you really want to trick lawmakers and the American public into believing that 'energy is energy'regardless of whether it's delivery schedule is controlled by people or the weather. I hope that you will take the time to understand reality. Meanwhile I think I speak for everyone here in saying that we forgive you for your lack of professionalism.
Allen Gerhardt
Allen Gerhardt
June 12, 2012
It is rather dolt to come here with made up numbers, and dispute the facts on wind power generation. We have the actual record, and that shows wind is the lowest cost option for new generation, with no water use, no emissions, no greenhouse gases, no heavy metal or particulate pollution, no radioactive releases. Wind is lowering the cost of energy. http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/spain-sets-wind-power-generation-record/ http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-do-winds-cost-price-and-performance-trends-show-three-cents-per-kilowa/ http://www.psr.org/news-events/news-archive/psr-cost-of-wind-power-far-lower-than-coal.html http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/09/citing-lower-costs-mich-utility-slashes-renewable-energy-surcharge Renewable energy has lowered the price of electricity 20% in Germany, so far. Colorado has achieved 30% renewable energy ahead of schedule, and 5 states get more than 20% of electricity from wind. Worldwide, renewable energy investments last year were greater than fossil fuel investment. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/26/376250/clean-energy-renewable-power-tops-fossil-fuels-for-first-time/ The trolls can make all the phony comments they want, but renewable energy is not going anywhere but up in use all over the world. People don't make decisions based on trolls on comment threads. The actual record of renewable energy is all the proof needed.
Tom Stacy
Tom Stacy
May 22, 2012
Nick thievery fails to understand what the objections to wind are. They are not "criminal." They are going about environmental, technical, and economic efficacy from a different angle then you are. Mr. draws is a lifetime environmentalist and physicist, and is just one critic of thousands. It is instructive to me, as a person potentially interested in bringing together like-minded people, that I should prepare a press release for media, and invite them to attend. I have nothing to hide because I seek the truth. The position happens to be that wind energy does not have a valid place on the grid, without deep and steep dependence on fossil fuel fired generation. the argument continues that, given a fixed amount of money with which to maximize the mitigation of harmful emissions from fossil fuels, no Wind energy would be chosen.
Tom Stacy
Tom Stacy
May 22, 2012
This article characterizes science-based scrutiny the way a mother bird creates distraction from her clutch instead of defending it directly. And apparently for the same reason.

I know Droz welcomes technical challenge from the wind industry, yet the wind industry instead tries to distract the public from the challenge at hand. Why do you as a reader suppose that is?
Nick Thielker
Nick Thielker
May 19, 2012
We're all looking for energy that has the largest possible positive impact on the grid while having the smallest possible negative impact on our environment, until the invisible-silent-zero-environmental-impact energy comes along, wind fits that description better than any form of energy. To fight renewable energy with a catastrophic environmental tipping point on (over?) the horizon is criminal. When our environment becomes inhospitable to human life we will not at that point have the option of sending away for spare parts, consequently we must fix our environment now. I want to look out my living room window and see a wind farm and the vast majority of my fellow earth citizens agree. We need wind, solar, conservation, bio, tidal, hydro, bike racks and a Manhattan Project for renewable energy. To say we can do without any one element is dangerously absurd.
Jed Rothwell
Jed Rothwell
May 18, 2012
You wrote: 'The USA makes about 2000 TWh from coal each year. Adding 10 million $ per death that you quote would add about 10c to the cost of a kWh, which would make coal look bad. But still cheaper than wind.'

Okay, now factor in the cost of global warming.


Actually, the particulate pollution problem can be fixed easily with existing technology. But no power company will spend millions when they can just as easily spend nothing and kill tens of thousands of people with impunity. They are no more likely to spend the money than the tobacco companies back in the 1970s would admit their product causes cancer.

Because the power companies are so irresponsible, not to mention homicidal, I would prefer to see them use a technology such as wind that only kills a few dozen people a year instead of thousands. They cannot do as much harm with wind even if harm is profitable.
Jed Rothwell
Jed Rothwell
May 18, 2012
You wrote: '90,000 people need say a million each to make them whole (thats 5 million for a family of 5).'

It is a lot more than $1 million per family. They have lost not just their houses but their farms, corporations, town halls, stores, fire departments, roads, water treatment plants, schools and everything else. And their livelihoods. Thousands of square kilometers have to be abandoned for 50 years or more.

[Correction: you said $5 million per family. That would cover it. However, TEPCO offered $10,000 per family, and they have been ordered to pay $130,000]

The radiation is much worse than TEPCO or the government will admit. There are places 50 km from the reactor where radiation on roofs or roads is about 2 times the natural background -- which is acceptable. That is what TEPCO points to. The problem is, when you move to a culvert or flooded rice field, where rain washed the particles, Geiger counters go off the scale. It is thousands of times background, with long lived isotopes. No one can live there. No crops can be grown.

The cost of mothballing the plants has bankrupted TEPCO, one of the largest power companies in the world. There is no way they will compensate the people whose lives they have destroyed.


'If we assume that Japan has an insurance penalty on nuclear of 2c/kwh . . .'

As far as I know, no insurance company in the U.S., Europe or Japan will cover any nuclear plant. The risk is too high. In the U.S. since 1957 all plants have been covered by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which means Uncle Sam picks up the tab.

There is a ~2c/kwh surcharge to cover ordinary mothballing. Cleaning up Fukushima has already cost $200 billion and it will likely cost $600 billion. Not including cleaning up the land, because that cannot be done.

(Note that I speak Japanese, I watch the NHK panel discussions, and I am in contact with many nuclear physicists and engineers in Japan, so I know a lot about this subject.)
Tom Andersen
Tom Andersen
May 18, 2012
90,000 people need say a million each to make them whole (thats 5 million for a family of 5). So $90 billion. Putting that sum on the single plant makes little sense - that would be like forcing someone in a car accident to pay all damages. As an insurance thing...
If we assume that Japan has an insurance penalty on nuclear of 2c/kwh (on a 44GW system thats $6+ billion per year) - it would be assume a Fukushima happens once every 20 years - just in japan. But we have some stats - it looks like one accident per 30 years world wide, which means insurance to pay all evacuees a million $ each would cost well under a penny a kWh.

So I don't see how its 'by far the most expensive'. Solar gets about 40 cents/kwh here in order for people to get excited enough to install it.
Tom Andersen
Tom Andersen
May 18, 2012
The USA makes about 2000 TWh from coal each year. Adding 10 million $ per death that you quote would add about 10c to the cost of a kWh, which would make coal look bad. But still cheaper than wind.

Any mathematical - 'cold' study of power generation favours nuclear power. Its fear that holds it back.
Jed Rothwell
Jed Rothwell
May 18, 2012
You wrote: "The cost of wind power is remarkably easy to calculate . . ."

Perhaps it is. Suppose for the sake of argument it comes to 21.6 cents/kwh.

The problem is that the cost of coal-fired power or nuclear power is remarkably difficult to calculate. There are many hidden costs. For example, as I mentioned above:

In the U.S. coal smoke particulates kill roughly 20,000 people per year according to the EPA. The industry and the ratepayers pay nothing for this. This is not included in the cost of electricity. Suppose it was? Imagine the industry paid for the people it killed at about the same cost the airlines and insurance companies pay for passengers killed in air accidents. That would instantly make coal the most expensive source of electricity.

What about the cost of global warming? That is incalculable.

Nuclear power in Japan was the cheapest source of electricity, until the Fukushima accident. It is now by far the most expensive. The cost of cleaning up the reactors will bankrupt TEPCO. 90,000 people have been dispossessed from houses, business and farms. The land will be uninhabitable for decades. The government and TEPCO will reimburse these people for a tiny fraction of the money they have lost. If you were to factor in the entire amount, it would make nuclear electricity several dollars per kilowatt hour.

The voters in Japan are demanding the entire nuclear power industry be shut down.

Compared to these other sources, wind seems cheap to me, even at 22 cents/kwh.
Tom Andersen
Tom Andersen
May 18, 2012
The cost of wind power is remarkably easy to calculate:

One 2MW turbine, with grind interconnections and installation, etc:

$6 million

Maintenance $100,000 /year

OK wind is free - so lets get that power...

365days*24hrs*2MW*25% = 4380 MWh. (25% is the output of a decent turbine. Germany averages below 20%).

So how much is that?

$6 million -, and we need a 10% ROI to be happy (20 year lifetime) + depreciation + maintenance
Works out to a cost of about $600,000 + $250000 for depreciation + 100,000 maintenance is $950,000

So thats $216 per MWh, or 21.6 cents/kwh.

Wind turbine builders like GE claim less - because they don't factor in the need for profit, or the requirement that many electric lines have to be built.

So why do American wind companies install wind and only charge 10 cents or so? The answer to that is complex tax schemes that supply the other half of the money through the back end - where taxpayers don't see it. I am not talking about just the PTC here - there are deeper reasons, such as tax laws that let renewable energy income not be taxed, etc. In the end the details of how wind developers are paid does not matter. The fact that they are building proves that they are getting paid. NextEra is not a charity.
Tom Andersen
Tom Andersen
May 18, 2012
Jed,

You seem to have the delusion that John Droz is somehow funded by 'big coal' to hammer on Wind Energy.

The exact opposite is true. Big Coal in terms of NextEra, GE, Suncor and BP pays for this site and promotes wind and solar power as a means of raising electric rates, so as to make more money. Its as simple as that.

John Droz, as you can see by looking at his site, is not funded by slick lobbyists.
http://windpowerfacts.info/

Sit back, look at the facts. They are there and they are clear.
Jed Rothwell
Jed Rothwell
May 17, 2012
We could implement this increase from 2% to 10% wind energy at no immediate cost Uncle Sam or the public by another method. We will, in fact, do this, if the Republicans win. It is very simple. We do nothing. Uncle Sam gives no tax breaks to the industry and does no R&D. We build no factories. Meanwhile the Chinese spend tens of billions a year building up their wind and solar industries. In 10 years, the Chinese come in with wind turbines and solar cells cheaper than coal, and they destroy our domestic energy producers.

This was the Bush administration policy for computers, televisions, lighting, rare earths, electric power generators and many other industries which have now been decimated in the U.S. and moved to China and elsewhere. I do not favor this approach. I think the U.S. should be an industrial nation, rather than an economic colony of China. In a colonial relationship, we export raw materials and import manufactured goods.
Jed Rothwell
Jed Rothwell
May 17, 2012
Regarding:

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

Table ES4, 2007 electricity subsidies

Compared to:

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

Look at Table ES2, and compare 2007 to 2010. You see a dramatic change. This is Bush versus Obama policy. Support for wind has increased from $0.5 to $5.0 billion. Support for coal has dropped from $3.1 to $1.4 billion.

Most of the change is in 'direct expenditures.' Read the text above and you see that most of the wind-energy expenditures are for R&D and turbine manufacturing factories. It will take a while for that money to convert to actual energy. If, in the next 10 years, wind increases from 2% to 5 or 10% of total energy -- which is a reasonable projection -- that will reduce coal by 10 to 20%. That will have a tremendous impact. It will save thousands of lives now lost to particulate pollution, and it will greatly reduce greenhouse gases. It is worth every penny, in my opinion.

With today's transmission and power storage technology, wind can increase to about 20%. That would cut coal down from 50% to 30%, and with natural gas and solar it could be a lot lower. Solar is intermittent but it is strongest when electricity is most needed in the south and southwest, so that is not a problem.
El Rucio
El Rucio
May 17, 2012
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

See pages xviii and xx.
Jed Rothwell
Jed Rothwell
May 17, 2012
'According to the DOE, In 2010, wind received 42% of all federal subsidies for electricity production and produced 2.3% of electricity generated.'

Where was this information published? It conflicts with the DoE EIA and other sources I am aware of. Most agree with this estimate:

http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

Over 7 years, Federal Subsidies were:

$72.6 billion for coal and oil, counting tax breaks

$16.8 billion for corn ethanol (which is an energy sink, not a source. This is a gift to OPEC.)

$12.2 billion for renewable energy, which is mainly things like wood biofuel, but also wind.

See also:

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

Table ES4, 2007 electricity subsidies

Total $6.7 billion
Coal $3.0 billion
Renewables $1.0 billion (mainly for hydro and wood)

Total subsidies for energy that year was $16.5 billion, but most of that was money flushed down the tubes on ethanol, which -- as I said -- consumes more oil energy than it produces in usable energy.

The EIA numbers are for 1 year so they are in reasonable agreement with the 7-year analysis above.
Colette McLean
Colette McLean
May 17, 2012
Oh! can we please stop the whinning about how coal and oil get subsidies therefore this justifies wind and every other pathetic form of energy getting some too. Support for an industry should be on the basis of whether or not it adds value and moves us forward economically without harm to the environment or to people. That is not happening with wind. Instead wind forces hydro to be spilled or nuclear to steam off because it comes on at inappropriate times for our grid (usually at night) which is of very limited value for the $$$ support it receives. As for your issue of death due to coal have a look at this info. which shows 0 correlation. Like I said before cigarettes transportation pollution are the major cause of respiratory illness if that is what you are referring to. http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick_windconference.pdf
The technical limitations with wind are not being met by forecasting nor can it even hope to replace any kind of conventional form of generation like nuclear so scare mongering about nuclear meltdown does not address the issues about wind energy which show that it is non-dispatchable, intermittent, inefficient, unreliable and requires fossil fuel generation such as NG to shadow it's hour by houra and minute by minute flutters of generation, making the fossil fuels run inefficiently, resulting in more emissions. Just check the studies done by BPA and CEPOS. BTW talking about the lives that have been spent in fighting in countries with OIL, completely ignores your own awareness where you indicate that oil is no longer used in electrical generation. Make sure you keep muddying those waters so that you can remove yourself from a real debate about the value of wind.
El Rucio
El Rucio
May 17, 2012
According to the DOE, In 2010, wind received 42% of all federal subsidies for electricity production and produced 2.3% of electricity generated. Coal produced 44.9% and received 10% of the subsidies. Natural gas and oil (almost all natural gas) produced 25% and received 3.6% of the subsidies. Nuclear produced 19.6% and received 19.8% of the subsidies.

Id est: $52.48/MWh for wind, $0.64/MWh for coal, $0.63/MWh for natural gas and oil, and $3.10/MWh for nuclear. Solar received $968/MWh. Hydro received $0.84/MWh.
Jed Rothwell
Jed Rothwell
May 17, 2012
You wrote: 'The growth of wind industry is a reflection of the lucrative support it receives from taxpayer $$'

Yeah, it gets nearly a fifth as much as fossil fuels. Half as much as coal. Of course that does not count the cost of 20,000 people killed by coal smoke particulates -- because no one pays the survivors. If you were to factor in that cost coal would be the most expensive source of energy. This does not count the cost of wars in the Middle East caused by oil money, which would drive the cost of gasoline up by many dollars per gallon.

No one can even begin to calculate the real cost of fossil fuel if global warming turns out to be as bad as some models predict.

Measured per watt of capacity wind gets more support than fossil fuels and nuclear power. It is just starting up whereas they have been in place for decades. Yet they get billions of dollars more in absolute dollars. This is like subsidizing vacuum tube computers and steam locomotives to prevent the spread of transistors and Diesel engines.



". . . wind is a dismal failure in this department because it needs fossil fuel backup to respond to it's pathetic and fickle generation."

Why on earth does that matter? Obviously wind cannot replace all generating capacity. Neither can hydroelectricity, because there is not enough. Neither can nuclear power, because it is only economical when used as baseline power. Building dispatchable nuclear power would be technical and economic lunacy. Do you say that hydroelectric dams and nuclear power should not be built because they have these technical limitations?

Wind generation depends on the weather, which can now be predicted days in advance. It is no more "fickle" than hydro in a dry season, or a coal-fired plant down for maintenance. It is much less "fickle" than the Fukushima nuclear reactor, which blew sky high and destroyed the entire Japanese nuclear power industry. Every single reactor in Japan is shutdown, and will not reopen.
Colette McLean
Colette McLean
May 17, 2012
The growth of wind industry is a reflection of the lucrative support it receives from taxpayer $$. The reduction in coal usage is a reflection of the depressed economy. As for spending millions... AWEA has a $10 Million budget specifically to lobby for it's cause and yet that is considered o.k. They like every other self interest organization are very involved in fundraising for gov't representative who are supportive of their cause and yet Big Oil who has brought us the prosperity we enjoy with abundant food to eat, safe water to drink, & clean air to breath is considered the Big BAD Wolf. I'm so sick of this mindset where everything green must be held sacrosanct even at the sake of people and the environment itself. As for the AGW, wind is a dismal failure in this department because it needs fossil fuel backup to respond to it's pathetic and fickle generation.
Jed Rothwell
Jed Rothwell
May 17, 2012
You wrote: "2% of wind is replacing 4% of coal???"

Very roughly. The last issue of the Annual Energy Review showed wind at ~2%. (DOE/EIA-0384(2010), October 2011) There have been no new nuclear plants and hydroelectric is tapped out. Electricity from oil was mostly phased out after the 1970s, except for peak generation. The only thing growing are wind and natural gas. There is a lot of opposition to coal because it is dirty and it produces a lot of CO2. So the way I see it, that 2% came out of coal's market share. Coal would have roughly 4% more business if wind had not taken it. I doubt that wind competes with natural gas, especially with fracking.

Table 8.4 shows that coal has taken a big hit. It has actually declined from 20.9 to 19.2 quads.


"Where is your proof that the fossil fuel industry is attacking wind??"

Statements by places like The Greening Earth Society and the laws proposed by their lackeys in the Congress. The Greening Earth Society was a front organization for the Western Fuels Association (big coal) and the Cato Institute. It actually promoted global warming as a benefit! You have to admire their chutzpah. It is defunct but the money hasn't gone anywhere. You can be sure they are still spending millions to prevent alternative energy. That's what they do. If you were making billions selling coal, you probably would too.
Colette McLean
Colette McLean
May 17, 2012
2% of wind is replacing 4% of coal??? Where is your proof that the fossil fuel industry is attacking wind?? What is 4% of electrical generation when the U.S. gets 50% of their electricity from coal. Most of the players in the wind industry belong to the corporate world of Big OIL and GAS. FPL, NextEra, all have interests in the fossil fuel generation and are the primary beneficiaries of renewable support programs. Where is your proof that coal is killing 20,000 people/yr. Pollution from transportation and cigarettes is the biggest culprit for lung diseases. Coal pollution is highly regulated and must meet set levels of emissions. It has cleaned up it's act substantially since the 60's. Nowhere have I been able to find that wind can actually replace coal, stabilize the price of electricity, provide reliable generation needed for a modern grid, or provide jobs without atrophying jobs in other sectors. All this and people living close to these industrial projects get their health hammered every day.
El Rucio
El Rucio
May 17, 2012
This is only evidence of one wind opponent hoping to tap into fossil fuel money. It doesn't appear to have gone anywhere, and ATI itself issued a statement making it clear that Droz was acting alone.
Jed Rothwell
Jed Rothwell
May 17, 2012
Anon wrote:

"I'm a big advocate of advancing commercial wind technology, but I also feel it should not be deployed until it makes economic sense. The scientific principles of free-market economics are just as powerful as those of physics. So they should not be ignored."

From 1840 to 1870 the sailing ship industry said the same thing about ocean-going steamships. The said the British and U.S. governments should stop subsidizing a technology that was not ready for the market by awarding lucrative mail contracts to "RMS" (Royal Mail Ship) steam packets. They said wait, and if the technology can compete with sail, it will eventually.

The same thing happened when automobile companies proposed paving roads. The railroads and light rail interests said not so fast, if automobiles are so good, let them compete on their own. The same thing happened when people proposed building airports to promote aviation in competition with rail and automobiles.

Where there is an entrenched, large-scale technology with an existing infrastructure, it has an enormous built-in advantages over new competition. The infrastructure is built for it. The tax system and government support structures are keyed to it. Big coal, oil and nuclear power get FAR more government support than wind energy does. The playing field is tilted in their favor. There are no free market capitalist forces at work here. "Economic sense" plays no role in the outcome.
Jed Rothwell
Jed Rothwell
May 17, 2012
This is the best proof that wind energy is actually generating a significant fraction of U.S. electricity. Fossil fuel interests would not bother to attack it otherwise. I believe wind it has reached 2% of annual electricity production, which means it has displaced roughly 4% of coal-fired generation. That is why the coal industry is attacking it.

Several years ago, the Representative from Big Coal (D-WV) tried to pass a bill that would essentially ban the use of wind power, ostensibly because wind turbines kill birds. This was not a serious effort. The Representative did it to show his paymasters that his heart was in the right place, and he would destroy the wind industry if he could.

Wind turbines may actually kill some birds, but particulate pollution from coal kills roughly 20,000 people per year, according to the EPA. That is a bigger problem, in my opinion. I expect coal also kills millions of birds. Particulate pollution could easily be eliminated but that would add a few cents per kilowatt hour to the cost of electricity.
El Rucio
El Rucio
May 17, 2012
"Amplify w/ pro-wind echo chamber"
(AWEA Leadership Council & Board of Directors Meeting, November 2, 2011)
Colette McLean
Colette McLean
May 17, 2012
Wind is intermittent, inefficient, unreliable, non-dispatchable and expensive. The jobs created are atrophying jobs in other sectors because electrical costs must increase to support its case. To top things off wind turbines in rural areas are hurting people. http://climatide.wgbh.org/2011/03/the-falmouth-experience-life-under-the-blades/
Wind energy offers very little in return for the investment. There has never been any kind of cost benefit analysis done on the VALUE of wind as an energy or job source. Please remember that wind energy is being forced upon us through policy, and regulation then bolstered by ratepayer subsidies. An industry that requires all of that to support it's business case is not much of an industry.
ANONYMOUS
May 10, 2012
Lftrsuk-

I wouldn't describe the commercial wind industry itself as being "crazy". These companies are just businesses doing what any other business would do: trying to make a profit for their shareholders using whatever legal means is available to them. Commercial wind turbine manufacturers employ lots of very talented engineers and scientists.

As for the groups and tactics being denounced by the author, they are no worse than those on the other side. Most of what I've read about commercial wind power in news media like the WSJ or WT is not simply "anti-wind", instead it's more a criticism of the market subsidies provided to commercial wind and the economic effects they have overall.

I'm a big advocate of advancing commercial wind technology, but I also feel it should not be deployed until it makes economic sense. The scientific principles of free-market economics are just as powerful as those of physics. So they should not be ignored.

The most honest way to advance renewable energy technology is to work hard at making it truly cost competitive with conventional sources, and it's possible. Using propaganda and political tactics is a dishonest approach, and ultimately doomed to failure.
Colin Megson
Colin Megson
May 10, 2012
Any other suggestions as to how to counter a crazy industry, with crazy illusions of grandeur?

Wind has its place, along with other renewables and it will end up supplying a single figure % of total energy use, in keeping with the needs of remote, non-urban communities. Base load electricity for urban dwellers, commerce and industry will inevitably come from breeder reactors when the ever increasing scarcity an cost of hydrocarbons starts to disrupt world order - my sense is it will need to be as early as the 2020s.

Crazy is not too strong an adjective, because the response to this will be: an inter-continentally connected forest of wind turbines and plastic squares, which are all grown from seeds and don't have any detrimental effect on the environment.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stephen Lacey

Stephen Lacey

I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, where I contributed stories and hosted the Inside Renewable Energy Podcast. Keep...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind

Most Commented

  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 9
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 5
    Ireland Keen to Hit 2030 Renewable Targets, Says EU Ambassador
  • 1
    No Easy Fix for Broken Wind Turbine at US High School

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners
  • Prudent Living, Inc.
  • Green Power Conferences
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Johnson Controls, Inc.
  • Natural Power
  • Renewables Academy AG (RENAC)
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information